Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.161.93] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2b2)
  with HTTP id 3188895 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:52:26 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: 2.85 redrive 
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2b2
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:52:26 -0400
Message-ID: <web-3188895@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3188888@logan.com>
References: <list-3188888@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

All this talk about 2.85 gear boxes, getting higher into the power curve, 
improving cliumb performance, etc, is really interesting.  Since 3 of my 6 
initial reasons for going rotary were reliability, I'm wondering what running 
at these higher power levels is going to do in that regard.  I'm pretty 
convinced that running at 5300-5500 rpms at cruise is a good formula for 
having an engine that isn't overtaxed and Tracy's experience has borne this 
out.  Isn't there any concern out there about increased wear to the rotor 
housings, greater potential for catastrophic failure and so on, at these 
considerably higher constant power levels?  I hate to be a wet blanket, but 
what are the real longterm tradeoffs in operating routinely at 15-20% higher 
power levels?

    <Marv>